College Hockey in Michigan

[shelfit]

Thanks so much for your input on College Hockey in Michigan

Any time.

[Leather helmet]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO kill it with fire

I have been following college hockey since the Woog era...and I mean Doug Woog as a Gopher player, not as a coach, so I have some perspective. The Big Ten shakeup in the men's game is ultimately good for college hockey. The Big Ten is currently a weak conference, but that is cyclical - most Big Ten members have been at the top before and will be again. Because of the number of non-conference games created by the shakeup, we now regularly see schools like BC, BU, and Notre Dame that we rarely saw in the past. (Just don't schedule Holy Cross!)

TTT, I was thinking of you when I posted this originally - wouldn't you rather see more of the Whioux and UMD place of Syracuse and Merrimack?

[Eeyore]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

In exactly the same way that the creation of a Big Ten conference shook up the men's game, a Big Ten conference would do the same for women. There would be opportunities for the better eastern programs to join up with the UMDs and UNDs to improve the level of play, and it would free up more non-conference opportunities for everyone. You would see more players from the east coming west to play college hockey.

There's no guarantee that Michigan and Michigan State adding women's hockey would lead to it becoming a Big 10 conference sport. It would produce a significant increase in travel costs, and the driving force behind the creation of a Big 10 men's conference wouldn't be there, as I doubt that the Big 10 network is clamoring for more women's hockey as programming.

The biggest fallout of this is that there's essentially zero chance of Michigan and Michigan State adding programs until such time as the sport is large enough that BTN does want to show a lot more of it. The whole argument that it's Red Berenson's attitude that is preventing Michigan from adding women's hockey is misguided. I have no doubt that he's not in favor of it, but his support is probably not necessary for the school to add women's hockey, and it definitely isn't sufficient. The roadblock to its addition is the athletic department's decision to focus on other sports.

For much the same reason that a Big 10 conference is unlikely, the formation of one wouldn't lead to more east/west non-conference matchups, especially on the part of the teams left behind in the WCHA. Losing Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin to the Big 10 would do nothing to alleviate the travelling expenses associated with such games. I think a more likely result is some current WCHA teams either folding or becoming the shells of programs as the interest generated by being in a conference with the Gophers vanishes.

If Michigan and Michigan State were to add women's hockey in the immediate future, I think a better solution than Big 10 conference play would be for them to join the CHA, probably followed by a swap of Ohio State and Lindenwood in order to produce a bit more geographical balance. As I said, though, the chances of this are close enough to zero that we're just engaging in wishful thinking.

[joecct]

There's no guarantee that Michigan and Michigan State adding women's hockey would lead to it becoming a Big 10 conference sport. It would produce a significant increase in travel costs, and the driving force behind the creation of a Big 10 men's conference wouldn't be there, as I doubt that the Big 10 network is clamoring for more women's hockey as programming.

The biggest fallout of this is that there's essentially zero chance of Michigan and Michigan State adding programs until such time as the sport is large enough that BTN does want to show a lot more of it. The whole argument that it's Red Berenson's attitude that is preventing Michigan from adding women's hockey is misguided. I have no doubt that he's not in favor of it, but his support is probably not necessary for the school to add women's hockey, and it definitely isn't sufficient. The roadblock to its addition is the athletic department's decision to focus on other sports.

For much the same reason that a Big 10 conference is unlikely, the formation of one wouldn't lead to more east/west non-conference matchups, especially on the part of the teams left behind in the WCHA. Losing Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin to the Big 10 would do nothing to alleviate the travelling expenses associated with such games. I think a more likely result is some current WCHA teams either folding or becoming the shells of programs as the interest generated by being in a conference with the Gophers vanishes.

If Michigan and Michigan State were to add women's hockey in the immediate future, I think a better solution than Big 10 conference play would be for them to join the CHA, probably followed by a swap of Ohio State and Lindenwood in order to produce a bit more geographical balance. As I said, though, the chances of this are close enough to zero that we're just engaging in wishful thinking.

Think of who would get the AQ in a B1G less WCHA. It would offer hope to UMD and BSU.

[ARM]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

Think of who would get the AQ in a B1G less WCHA. It would offer hope to UMD and BSU.

With only five teams, it wouldn't get an AQ unless some team was added.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't happen any time soon. I like being able to realistically drive to every arena in the league except Ohio State.

[mnpokecheck]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

With only five teams, it wouldn't get an AQ unless some team was added.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't happen any time soon. I like being able to realistically drive to every arena in the league except Ohio State.

.... add Lindenwood....and Shannon Miller had a job for life

[NUWH DogHouse]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

If both UM and MSU add there would be 6 B1G teams (Minny, Wisco, Ohio St, Penn St). And as I recall from the mens discussions at that point they MUST from a conference and play under the banner.

[Eeyore]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

If both UM and MSU add there would be 6 B1G teams (Minny, Wisco, Ohio St, Penn St). And as I recall from the mens discussions at that point they MUST from a conference and play under the banner.

This is false; I've actually discussed it with someone who worked in the Big 10 offices whose job involved knowing those kinds of rules. There must be at least six conference schools playing a sport before it can be a conference sport, but there are no requirements that it must be a conference sport based upon a specific number of schools playing it.

However, if it is a conference sanctioned sport, then any Big 10 school that plays it at the varsity level must play within the conference. This was the reason why Notre Dame's attempts to join the Big 10 in all sports except football fell apart. The conference schools had no interest in offering them the kind of waiver that the ACC did; it's not like Notre Dame is Johns Hopkins or anything.

[giwan]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

Very funny. I think you mean either tattered flagship or sinking flagship - take your pick. There's nobody at the helm steering that ship. The AD will probably step back in or the men's assistant coach. Bad move either way but let's face it anyone could step in right now to run that program. They should just let the assistant coaches run the women's team this year.

I believe the biggest reason they have some sports is to bring in more students. Example they also just started a football team

[Hammer]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

I believe the biggest reason they have some sports is to bring in more students. Example they also just started a football team

And from what I've heard about their enrollment, they need all the help they can get on that front, sadly.

[shelfit]

And from what I've heard about their enrollment, they need all the help they can get on that front, sadly.

Having your athletics programs be so enrollment driven is NOT the best way to run things for so many reasons but you don't have much choice at small schools like that. The biggest problem is that the chief emphasis is to simply have teams with a certain number of athletes regardless of the level of talent. That brings me back to my earlier post that the women's hockey assistant coaches should be allowed to run the team this year because it doesn't really matter who runs the team since competing well isn't the top priority there.

[Hammer]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

According to this, Finlandia had 477 students on campus for Spring 2014. That's nothing but trouble. And from what I've heard (pure speculation until I see evidence), enrollment has dropped from there, although I just saw another article that pegs enrollment this fall at about 560.

Either way, that's not good. At that point, you've got to do something. You've got bills to pay, and the light bill and the food vendors and such aren't going to care one whit about how enrollment is down X percent.

[WiscDC]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

This is false; I've actually discussed it with someone who worked in the Big 10 offices whose job involved knowing those kinds of rules. There must be at least six conference schools playing a sport before it can be a conference sport, but there are no requirements that it must be a conference sport based upon a specific number of schools playing it.

However, if it is a conference sanctioned sport, then any Big 10 school that plays it at the varsity level must play within the conference. This was the reason why Notre Dame's attempts to join the Big 10 in all sports except football fell apart. The conference schools had no interest in offering them the kind of waiver that the ACC did; it's not like Notre Dame is Johns Hopkins or anything.

You can have a conference with fewer than six teams in that sport, but there won't be an automatic berth in the national tournament.

[ritBLKnORGsuit]

There's no guarantee that Michigan and Michigan State adding women's hockey would lead to it becoming a Big 10 conference sport. It would produce a significant increase in travel costs, and the driving force behind the creation of a Big 10 men's conference wouldn't be there, as I doubt that the Big 10 network is clamoring for more women's hockey as programming.

The biggest fallout of this is that there's essentially zero chance of Michigan and Michigan State adding programs until such time as the sport is large enough that BTN does want to show a lot more of it. The whole argument that it's Red Berenson's attitude that is preventing Michigan from adding women's hockey is misguided. I have no doubt that he's not in favor of it, but his support is probably not necessary for the school to add women's hockey, and it definitely isn't sufficient. The roadblock to its addition is the athletic department's decision to focus on other sports.

For much the same reason that a Big 10 conference is unlikely, the formation of one wouldn't lead to more east/west non-conference matchups, especially on the part of the teams left behind in the WCHA. Losing Minnesota, Ohio State, and Wisconsin to the Big 10 would do nothing to alleviate the travelling expenses associated with such games. I think a more likely result is some current WCHA teams either folding or becoming the shells of programs as the interest generated by being in a conference with the Gophers vanishes.

If Michigan and Michigan State were to add women's hockey in the immediate future, I think a better solution than Big 10 conference play would be for them to join the CHA, probably followed by a swap of Ohio State and Lindenwood in order to produce a bit more geographical balance. As I said, though, the chances of this are close enough to zero that we're just engaging in wishful thinking.

I 100% agree with you. I also would ask why would the Michigan schools want to create a women's hockey teams to join a conference where they will get destroyed year after year by Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wouldn't make more sense to start off in a CHA where they can grow their programs then later on when they both become more competitive create the Big 10?

[Eeyore]

Re: College Hockey in Michigan

You can have a conference with fewer than six teams in that sport, but there won't be an automatic berth in the national tournament.

It's not an NCAA rule; it's a Big 10 rule that they will not sponsor a sport that fewer than six conference teams play.